manual petrol lexus is250

[jjis250]

guys! i'm London based, planning to pick up an IS250 with 100000 miles and manual. what all problems shall i look for buying a used one, how's the reliability,what mpg's can i achieve and what's your insurance cost, i just crossed 20 so i know mine's gonna be hetic. PLEASE SHOOT GUYS.

[Linas.P]

In general solid cars, but when compared between AT and MT, then MT has quite a few known "issues" (they are not issues per say, but excessive maintenance) - clutch work is particularly costly and complex ~£1000 if you do it properly with all parts, DLF issues... generally requires additional maintenance. AT needs none of that, there is argument that AT fluid needs to be changed, but likewise MT oil needs changing and needs doing it more often.

If you ask me MT rations are rather weird and overall MT does not suit IS250 as a car it is (not sporty, but more luxurious). And AT is more fuel efficient of course, just not by much. My fuel consumption was 28MPG average over 70k miles, so on MT will be at best 1-2MPG lower, but may be much worse depending on your proficiency with gear changes. One thing for sure - MT will never have better MPG all else being equal.

Then MT is £525 road tax, whereas AT is £325, insurance is more expensive on MT as well. Not sure how lucky you will be with your insurance, but I paid £2600 on my first year of ownership of AT car in London and I was 24 old and had license for 8 years. 

So what we established so far - MT is less reliable/requires more maintenance and maintenance is more expensive, road tax and insurance is more expensive. Whenever it drives better or worse that is obviously personal preference, but being in London you will soon get annoying shifting and your clutch won't thank you either in start/stop traffic.

Is there any particular reason why you particularly want MT and not AT? General advise would be to go with AT for all above reasons... unless you planning to build like drift car from IS250 🙂 

[jjis250]

17 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

In general solid cars, but when compared between AT and MT, then MT has quite a few known "issues" (they are not issues per say, but excessive maintenance) - clutch work is particularly costly and complex ~£1000 if you do it properly with all parts, DLF issues... generally requires additional maintenance. AT needs none of that, there is argument that AT fluid needs to be changed, but likewise MT oil needs changing and needs doing it more often.

If you ask me MT rations are rather weird and overall MT does not suit IS250 as a car it is (not sporty, but more luxurious). And AT is more fuel efficient of course, just not by much. My fuel consumption was 28MPG average over 70k miles, so on MT will be at best 1-2MPG lower, but may be much worse depending on your proficiency with gear changes. One thing for sure - MT will never have better MPG all else being equal.

Then MT is £525 road tax, whereas AT is £325, insurance is more expensive on MT as well. Not sure how lucky you will be with your insurance, but I paid £2600 on my first year of ownership of AT car in London and I was 24 old and had license for 8 years. 

So what we established so far - MT is less reliable/requires more maintenance and maintenance is more expensive, road tax and insurance is more expensive. Whenever it drives better or worse that is obviously personal preference, but being in London you will soon get annoying shifting and your clutch won't thank you either in start/stop traffic.

Is there any particular reason why you particularly want MT and not AT? General advise would be to go with AT for all above reasons... unless you planning to build like drift car from IS250 🙂 

is it reliable tho? 

[Linas.P]

Car itself, not considering gearbox, is bulletproof if maintained. AT gearbox is bulletproof. MT gearbox not so much... you can say clutch and various associated bits and pieces are just normal wear and tear.. sure. But this "normal" wear and tear does not exists on AT. So MT car is reliable, but it may cost you £1000 extra just for wear and tear parts, where on AT you will only need to replace oil, pads and filters.

Apart of that all other issues will be same of AT/MT e.g. sticking calliper applies for both cars, excessive front discs wear, carbon build-up in engine etc. and apart of these minor issues cars have very little weak points.

That will be on you to decide if it is worth it extra cost and why... 

[Vintagesixtysix]

If you need another voice..... LinusP is correct. 
The clutch issue is a tricky one to advise on..... I picked mine up (MT) quite reasonably because the previous owner had clutch judder, & knew how much it was to fix.

Ive since done 80k without changing the clutch or DMF .... which are still the original by the way.

If the clutch and fly wheel were to show no signs of wear on your selected car then maybe it’s already been changed or never suffered.

Apart from that in 80k I’ve replaced one rear brake calliper plus service consumables. 

It might also be worth considering the point mentioned if you are commuting if stop start might wear a little thin on a car that’s not the most frugal either.

Im having some paint refreshed and wheels powder coated this week as she continues to be a keeper.

im nearly three times your age and don’t live in London.... so my insurance  cost comparison is probably not worth the ink! 😉
 

hope helps.

[Brechin Slate]

1 hour ago, jjis250 said:

is it reliable tho?

In a word, yes.  I just sold a 130,000 mile IS250 and the new owner is delighted with it.  I put new discs and pads on it 2 years ago but the car never missed a beat otherwise.  Bodywork was beautiful and the car still looked the business 14 years after it was new.  Mine was AT though..

[rich1068]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Then MT is £525 road tax

QFE.

[Brechin Slate]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Then MT is £525 road tax, whereas AT is £325

Think this should be £565 and £305?? 

J: 186 to 200g/km	£305

K*: 201 to 225g/km	£330

L: 226 to 255g/km	£565

[Linas.P]

Could be - my knowledge may be outdated. I think when I bought my AT it was £285 and MT was £495, but then every year it went up by £5-10.

It seems according to Autotrader it is £330 and £565 respectively, but that is not in line with Co2 figures. AT is quoted 194g and MT 231g (which is ridiculous, but it is what it is). So AT should be £305 as you said, however I am quite confident I paid £325 last year for mine and it would have gone up-to £330 as per Autotrader.

____

edit:

yes indeed - it is £325 least year so £330 this year.

[DAN@ADRIAN FLUX]

Hi.

If you need any help with insurance at all then please feel free to drop me a line.

Regards,

Dan.

[scudney]

CO2 emissions were tweaked slightly over the years as the earlier automatics were 214 grams with road tax currently £330  and the later models were 194 grams and £305 road tax

[jjis250]

9 hours ago, Linas.P said:

In general solid cars, but when compared between AT and MT, then MT has quite a few known "issues" (they are not issues per say, but excessive maintenance) - clutch work is particularly costly and complex ~£1000 if you do it properly with all parts, DLF issues... generally requires additional maintenance. AT needs none of that, there is argument that AT fluid needs to be changed, but likewise MT oil needs changing and needs doing it more often.

If you ask me MT rations are rather weird and overall MT does not suit IS250 as a car it is (not sporty, but more luxurious). And AT is more fuel efficient of course, just not by much. My fuel consumption was 28MPG average over 70k miles, so on MT will be at best 1-2MPG lower, but may be much worse depending on your proficiency with gear changes. One thing for sure - MT will never have better MPG all else being equal.

Then MT is £525 road tax, whereas AT is £325, insurance is more expensive on MT as well. Not sure how lucky you will be with your insurance, but I paid £2600 on my first year of ownership of AT car in London and I was 24 old and had license for 8 years. 

So what we established so far - MT is less reliable/requires more maintenance and maintenance is more expensive, road tax and insurance is more expensive. Whenever it drives better or worse that is obviously personal preference, but being in London you will soon get annoying shifting and your clutch won't thank you either in start/stop traffic.

Is there any particular reason why you particularly want MT and not AT? General advise would be to go with AT for all above reasons... unless you planning to build like drift car from IS250 🙂 

i am indian, i learned driving in a manual car, 90% of cars are manual over there because they're cheap to make, i prefer to have things under my control. paddle shifts are cool tho. that's why i'm particularly into manuals.

[scudney]

I learned to drive in a manual car,I currently also have a second car which is a manual.However we have to embrace change at some point and try alternatives,the choice as always is yours,however I know which i would go for 

[Mr Vlad]

I've been driving cars 39 years. I'm on car 28 now lol. The last 6 cars I've had have been auto gearbox or CVH. All over cars manual gearboxes. I so much prefer autos now I'll never go back to manual. Just putting my 2p in lol

[Linas.P]

8 hours ago, jjis250 said:

i am indian, i learned driving in a manual car, 90% of cars are manual over there because they're cheap to make, i prefer to have things under my control. paddle shifts are cool tho. that's why i'm particularly into manuals.

I learned to drive in manual too... I am pretty sure that like 90% of licenses are on manual and only few on "auto only". At some point I was really anti-auto to the level that I was saying they are for lazy people (well I was 16 then - so what do you expect). However, when opinion meets practice it just so happens I realised it is not cool to inch in the traffic for hours at times and grind clutch.

I would still have manual car, but that should be more like sports car driven on weekends on a nice scenic road or track. Besides Lexus IS250 is not even a "good" manual in my opinion, as I said - it doesn't really suit the car, the ratios are weird (although I was told Sport version had shorter ratios) and then you have all the problems linked to it. Probably if they made IS250C manual, I can imagine having that as a weekend car, but IS250 is much better as auto.

My advice would be - at least try both. In the end of the day is your decision what you get, it is not me who will have to live with it and not my money, but I find hard to justify paying more to have manual car, especially when living in London.

[LenT]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

My advice would be - at least try both. In the end of the day is your decision what you get, it is not me who will have to live with it and not my money, but I find hard to justify paying more to have manual car, especially when living in London.

I would agree with all of that. I think you have to be a fully paid up masochist to own a manual for driving mainly in London.  Or any major city, come to that.

But the car is what it is and no doubt your budget determines what you can buy, it’s age and condition.  Are you a member of one of the motoring organisations?  Or know any good mechanics?  See if you can get the car independently inspected.  If the owner resists, there’s a reason...so probably best to walk away.

Knowing when to walk away from a deal is one of the great lessons in Life!

Others have already advised as to the reliability of an IS250 of that age.  I can’t comment on that.  In the end, if it’s a sound car and one that you can comfortably afford, then I think the pleasure you will get from owning it will outweigh such matters as the manual/auto debate.

 

 

 

[jjis250]

look dude, i don't simp on manuals XD , it is cheaper than the automatic so i thought it is a win win, i have selected 4 IS250's 2 are automatic and 2 are manual, i live in watford, my friends drive manual and i don't hear any rants either. i did my own research. searched all the is250 forums and didn't find any particular thing to worry about as far i know it is a MT from a truck and it lacks, went yesterday and test drove one MT, found it not too bad, now i'm getting it mechanically checked by a guy from click mechanic UK. i'll keep you updated. the previous owner bought a RCF F sport and flexed hard on me lol.

[Linas.P]

RC-F or F-Sport ? 😁

Either way - good luck with your purchase!